Picture this, it’s Milan Fashion Week and Gucci’s fashion show is about to begin when out walks models wearing turbans. You might think what’s wrong with that? but the models of choice are white and wearing an item of clothing specific to the Sikh religion. It’s divided critics with the majority being against this choice, what would have been wrong with using appropriate models? If a Sikh model couldn’t be found or did not wish to be involved then does that not speak volumes?
Gucci may see this as being a homage to culture but the turban is significant in the Sikh religion as representing self-respect, honour, spirituality, courage and piety. Gucci is simply using it as disposable fashion, the turban is not supposed to be fashionable and seasonable. In religion it is supposed to fully cover the hair but as you can see from the male model in the centre his hair is visible so Gucci are not correctly adhering to the Sikh religion in any way.
As a powerful fashion house Gucci could change the landscape of how religious clothing is perceived by using a vast array of appropriate models from different backgrounds and religions. A lot more education is needed for brands who feel it is okay to borrow sacred religious garments merely for fashion collections, the turban is merely more than a seasonal item portrayed here.
What are your thoughts?
Can brands get away with making religion fashionable?
YouTube heroes are quickly declining after many popular vloggers upsetting their fans in 2017.
Zoe Sugg aka Zoella (over 12 million subscribers) suffered a heap of backlash over her festive Advent Calendar caused controversy over its ridiculous high price and poor content packaged inside. If you don’t remember it then the 12 day calendar cost a whopping £50 and contained things like stickers and confetti. Allegedly it wasn’t down to the star what the price point was but she’s happy to slap her name over the crap inside?
She’d also let down fans further at the event Hello World Live but that wasn’t all down to her it was an oversold event hyped up on the basis of a great experience but she barely saw her fans. I’ve never been a subscriber to Zoella but I have brought her merchandise in the past as gifts and to me it looks like she’s all about the money now. Usually her festive merch sells out super fast but this year the shelves are still filled in the sales so can she make a comeback this year?
Logan Paul (Logan Paul Vlogs) took things to the next level recently by publishing a video of a suicide victim found in Japan’s notorious Aokigahara Forest aka ‘Suicide Forest’. The vlogger joked with friends about finding the body and zoomed in on various parts of the victims body, showcasing it to over 15 million subscribers. He claims the reason he did this was to raise awareness of suicide or so he says…
There is absolutely no reason why anyone should film in that area for a YouTube video and it’s absolutely disgraceful that he did it for the views or whatever his motive was. It’s also a shock that YouTube allowed the upload to begin with which questions how safe is the internet really?
Both these Youtubers apologised with Twitter statements and videos but is that really good enough? Should more be done to show their sincerity?
In an online world it’s just as easy to be brought down by fans as it is to be built up.
If you need any support for Mental Health or know of anybody who does then please visit http://www.mind.org.uk to receive telephone support or to find out how else you can receive support.
*Please note I have not seen the Logan Paul Video and it has since been removed from YouTube
The ‘Perfect Body’ or bodies used in the latest campaign for the large American corporation Victoria’s Secret has caused outrage and backlash against many who feel they used a poor choice of words and models. Three UK students Frances Black, Gabriella Kountourides & Laura Ferris have taken it upon their selves to get the advertisement re-worded or at least an apology from the company, this is through the use of a petition which currently has 20,452 supporters.
The #iamperfect campaign and Twitter handle has been created by those that want the company to change their views and come to the understanding that they are spreading an incredibly unhealthy message about body image.
If you are aware of ‘Victoria’s Angels’ which showcases models such as Miranda Kerr then you will know that this company frequently uses slim models in it’s campaigns, the ‘perfect body’ is no different and showcases 10 models with similar body types and emphasis that the perfect body is a slim frame with a push up bra… It has also been accused of airbrushing the models to make them look more desirable and ‘perfect’ which lets face it doesn’t exist, especially when airbrushing comes into the equation.
The students are brave for setting up the petition and taking on such a large corporations which has millions of female fans, it is their duty as a company to inspire females with their products rather than unleashing a campaign that makes you think in order to have the perfect body you must look like the models they specifically pick to front the advertisements.
The advertisements have been showcased across billboards and other means of marketing so there would be no avoiding the imagery, the models can also be shown with ‘thigh gaps’ which is a very dangerous thing which young females have tried to achieve so again Victoria’s Secret are promoting an unhealthy look which could lead to eating disorders if people tried to obtain it. This form of ‘body shaming’ is getting out of hand and can be frequently found across the media.
If you would like to sign the petition then click the link below!
American Apparel as featured previously on my blog is yet again using shock tactics and sexualised images to promote their company and products. Dov Charney the founder who was dismissed previously for sexual allegations and misconduct has been re-hired as a ‘consultant’, surely the man who has various sexual harassment cases against him shouldn’t be re-associated with the company if they want to get away from the negative image which he has portrayed onto them.
The latest campaign which has caused outrage comes from the ‘back to school’ range and promotes a ‘School girl’ fantasy which can be linked to pornography, the image has reportedly been removed from the site now (I found it on Google) which leads you to think if it is just an innocent campaign then why remove it?
It can be assumed that the model is of the consensual age but it’s hard to tell when you cant see her face… Back to School is often aimed at under 16’s so it could be argues that this is promoting the sexualisation of children which cannot be justified. “Peter Bradley, from Kidscape, said: ‘It’s something we find abhorrent. It’s about using underage pornography to sell products and the sexualisation of children, which cannot ever be justified.”
We’ve all heard the expression ‘sex sells’ but that should never be used to promote anything to do with children or schools.
Another advertisement taken directly from the American Apparel website was used to show that the school term had ended, the young girl in the advertisement can clearly be shown on a bed which again sexualises the image, I’m not sure what age the girl is but she looks too young to be objectified by a company trying to use sex as a promotion. If you look at the many other campaigns from the company or even of the products then you will see that the company like to use young models often wearing very little.
This image isn’t linked to the back to school campaign but again expresses the need the company feels to use young models whilst sexualising them, the product in question is of a ‘vinyl mini skirt’ which in itself could be linked to fetishism and pornography, again the girl is quite young and posing in very little. Considering the company are trying to sell a skirt why should the model be topless and have her legs spread apart?
Another recent campaign from April 2014 shows a girl with her legs spread, the actual product she is supposed to be advertising is a ‘Fisherman’s jumper’ which I guess some people may not be able to tell as the large letters of ‘Bon Appetit’ and the fact she’s eating a large sandwich are quite distracting…
The site actually sells clothes aimed at babies and young children so is it appropriate for them to sexualise clothing aimed at women? I hardly think so. If you take a look at their ad campains (link below) you will see that the male models aren’t sexualised so why should it just be women that ‘sell sex’, it just promotes objectification and misogyny and I think the company should stop listening to Dov Charney and turn their selves around before the company is run into the ground.
Everybody in the world knows her name, Lady Gaga isn’t your ordinary popstar, in fact in most of her ‘artsy’ videos you see the singer wearing very little which is also a portrayal of her style in day to day life. We all know Lady Gaga likes to put on a performance but the latest news to come out was actually quite shocking and in poor taste…
It has emerged that ‘Do What U Want’ the second single from new album Art Pop featuring R Kelly was banned for glamorising rape, throughout the clip the singer is naked which comes to no surprise. R Kelly who plays a doctor is shown to reach under the operating sheet covering her whilst before she passes out. He also states “I’m putting you under, and when you wake up, you’re going to be pregnant.” if that isn’t glamorising rape then I don’t know what is.
Other controversial factors of this collaboration is the fact that Lady Gaga collaborated with R Kelly who was acquitted of Child Pornography charges in 2008 and for the video to be directed by Terry Richardson a photographer who has received many complaints by models stating his inappropriate sexual behaviour towards them. The photographer directed the video Wrecking Ball for Miley Cyrus as well as photographing her and the likes of Kate Moss.
The lyrics ‘You can’t have my heart, and you won’t use my mind but do what you want with my body’ clearly back up the accusations of rape being glamorised. Although the lyrics in my opinion are quite poor and I don’t personally like the song it still managed to reach No.1 in the UK.
Do you think rape was glamorised here?
Although her popularity may be declining the controversy surrounding her now might bring Lady Gaga back into the limelight, she’ll just have to be more careful when selecting ‘artsy’ projects.
If you Google American Apparel then you will see pages of images filled with sexually graphic content, it’s hard to believe this is a clothing company…
Dov Charney the CEO of controversial company American Apparel has been fired after coming under many sexual harassment cases, the 45-year-old who founded the company in 1998 is believed to have undertaken an unprofessional approach to his female employees, it is said he walked around in his underpants in front of them and even brought they sex toys as gifts. Although he has come under fire for many sexual harassment cases the company have always backed him and no cases have been successful, it has recently emerged that the company have let him go due to ‘misconduct’ it is not clear what he has actually done.
Such controversial advertisements like shown above prove that Charney has a lack of respect for women, previous employees claim he acted inappropriately during interviews and were even asked to masturbate in front of him, surely this should have rung alarm bells with the other directors and shareholders within the company? Whilst being interviewed by a journalist she claims he had a sex act performed on him whilst being part of an interview, this CEO clear should have been removed from the company long ago, just because he has ‘power’ within the company doesn’t mean he should abuse it and harass those around him.